Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Jul 18, 2004 11:04pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: viewing these films is just the BEGINNING of the learning

Ridetheory,s comment that it is as "plain as the nose on your face " and Tambora,s reference to an astronomer are NOT useful. There are millions of photographers recording events. So if you wish to discover Art in film footage you will need to be more careful in the selection of examples. (revision:spelling corrected)

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-07-19 05:51:54

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-07-19 06:04:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Jul 19, 2004 1:30am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: viewing these films is just the BEGINNING of the learning

Here we go again, again, again...

"Plain as the nose on your face" was a joke, because Brahe had an artificial nose made of gold.

http://www.highrise.dircon.co.uk/deptlads/themes/tycho_brahe/tycho.htm

What is the difference between this off-topic thread and asking about the origin of the word "fillum"?

Why do you get so upset when the rest of us have a casual conversation? As much as you would like it to be, this is not a scholarly discussion among academics who are readying a paper for a peer-reviewed journal -- it's a bunch of goofballs who like odd movies and like to talk about them. And even if it were a bunch of scholars, believe it or not, they make jokes too.

It's hard to imagine a post more useless than a post complaining about the uselessness of other posts. Me arguing with you about it is slightly more useless, I suppose, seeing as you won't pick up the hint that you are misbehaving. It's called trolling. It is unseemly. Please stop it.

You also use reviews to review other reviewers' reviews, rather than the films. How useful is that?

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-07-19 08:30:29

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tambora Date: Jul 19, 2004 8:17am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: viewing these films is just the BEGINNING of the learning

The joke was appreciated. And, unlike Cashel, I got it.

Part of filmmaking is choosing what to point your camera at. If you point your camera at something no one else did, then you are probably a good filmmaker. In the case of Besse and Medicus, their contributions are unforgettable and unique. Therefore, they are good filmmakers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Jul 19, 2004 2:23pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: viewing these films is just the BEGINNING of the learning

Tambora..I have waiting for someone to challenge YOUR STATEMENT that " If you point your camera at something no one else did, then you are probably a good film maker". This will please the many consumers who own a video camera BUt I would think that most of their output is unviewable except by a select few and does not represent the noble art of film-making.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Jul 19, 2004 2:39pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: viewing these films is just the BEGINNING of the learning

May I please gently request that we steer the conversation back to the specific Medicus film in question, rather than go off on one of these tangents again?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tambora Date: Jul 19, 2004 3:16pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: viewing these films is just the BEGINNING of the learning

While I respect Ridetheory's incredibly valid opinion, I must explain my brief post to Cashel.

Obviously, every film is unique and, in a way, every filmmaker, even a parent with a bouncy camcorder, records a unique event or a unique aspect of a common event with every film they make. My statement didn't apply to them.

I didn't mean that that parent is a great filmmaker for filming their child on Christmas morning. I mean that well before camcorders were invented, the first guy to use real Kodakchrome to film his kids open presents was a unique and a good filmmaker. Nobody recorded the minute details of life quite like Besse did, and definitely not during that time period; therefore I consider him a good filmmaker.

And certainly it goes the other way; those who record the obscene limits of the human experience just to shock is not a good filmmaker, even if what he films is unique. Of course, if he intends a message beyond the shock value, I might re-evaluate that statement.

In short, Thomas Edison was good filmmaker for filming a few frames of boxers in a ring, not because of any great filmmaking techniques, but just because he was one of the first, and Larry Flynt can film as many lewd sex acts as he wants to, but just because he put them on film first doesn't make him a good filmmaker.

In shorter, to be first is to be good, unless that first is patently offensive and unartistic.

That's just my opinion. I guess we can drop it now.

EDIT: Oh, and as to the unviewability issues, Stan Brakhage is unviewable. So was Andy Warhol, and yet they are considered significant filmmakers in spite of themselves. Maybe not quite directly on topic. Anyway, I apologize again to ridetheory.

This post was modified by tambora on 2004-07-19 22:16:41

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Jul 19, 2004 3:21pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: viewing these films is just the BEGINNING of the learning

Well put.

I don't mind off topic posts (I certainly make my share of them) but when the arguments degenerate into Cashel threads I've read a dozen times before...

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)